Soo v Yang & Vale Pty Ltd - [2022] VSC 256

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2020 03767

LIN SENG SOO	Applicant
v
YANG & VALE PTY LTD ACN (167 895 169) as trustee for the Chen Yang Family Trust	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Forbes J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 April 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 May 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Soo v Yang & Vale Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 256

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal from orders of VCAT refusing reinstatement of claim to recover legal costs – Whether parties had agreed to resolve costs dispute – Consent order made on basis of agreement – Grounds of appeal – Admission of evidence of compulsory conference – Inadequate reasons – Procedural fairness – Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), ss 85, 117, 148 – Leave to appeal on one ground granted – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr K Raghavan	Victorian Bar Pro Bono Scheme
For the Respondent	Mr L Wirth	Paul Vale Criminal Law

HER HONOUR:

The applicant, Mr Soo, disputed legal costs incurred by his lawyer, Mr Chen Yang of the respondent whose legal practice is known as Paul Vale Criminal Law. His application to recover those costs was struck out with a right to apply for reinstatement. An application for reinstatement was made and refused (the reinstatement application). He seeks leave to appeal against the orders made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 1 September 2000 dismissing the reinstatement application. An appeal from an order of VCAT may only be brought on a question of law.[1] An applicant requires leave to appeal. Section 148(2A) of the Act provides that this court may grant leave to appeal only if it is satisfied that the appeal has a real prospect of success.
[1]Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), s 148 (1) (‘VCAT Act’).

The applicant represented himself at VCAT and drew the proposed grounds of appeal to this court himself. Three questions of law were identified with multiple grounds in respect of each question. As framed by the Amended Notice of Appeal dated 1 February 2021, the three questions of law are that:

(a) the findings made by the Member were not open to him on the evidence;

(b) the Member breached procedural fairness in conducting the proceeding; and

(c) the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for the orders dismissing the reinstatement application.

Mr Raghavan, who appeared for the applicant at the hearing, briefed through the Victorian Bar pro bono scheme, was instructed to press only two of the grounds of appeal. The first question of law pressed only ground 4. The written documents prepared by Mr Soo had described this ground in the following way:

Did Member Josephs on 1/9/20 exceed his judicial powers to use private and confidential negotiations leading to the settlement offer during the 9/7/20 compulsory conference before…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Soo v Yang & Vale Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Soo v Yang and Vale Pty Ltd [2022] VSC 256
Case: [2022] VSC 256
Decision Date: 20 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Soo v Yang & Vale Pty Ltd involved an appeal from orders of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) which had refused the reinstatement of a claim to recover legal costs. The respondents had previously withdrawn their claim for costs, and the applicants sought to have the costs awarded to them. The legal issues before the court were whether the parties had agreed to resolve the costs dispute, whether the consent order was validly made, and whether procedural fairness had been observed in the VCAT proceedings. Additionally, the applicants sought to admit evidence of a compulsory conference held between the parties, which was not permitted by VCAT.

The court found that the parties had indeed reached an agreement to resolve the costs dispute. However, the consent order was made on the basis of an agreement that did not exist, leading to an invalid order. The court further found that the reasons provided by VCAT were inadequate and did not adequately address the issues before it. In terms of procedural fairness, the court found that VCAT had not adequately considered the applicants' submissions and had failed to give the applicants an opportunity to respond to the respondents' submissions. Finally, the court found that the applicants' evidence of the compulsory conference was not admissible as it was not relevant to the issues before VCAT.

The appeal was allowed on one ground, that being the inadequacy of the reasons provided by VCAT. However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed as the court found that the error did not result in a failure of justice. The court found that the agreement between the parties was valid and that the consent order should be set aside. However, as the parties had reached an agreement to resolve the costs dispute, the applicants' claim for costs was dismissed. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders